基于系统动力学的邮轮建造施工进度风险演化研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.S1.0821

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为有效降低施工项目进度延误风险,探究施工进度与风险要素在交互作用下工期与风险的动态演变机制,创建一种基于系统动力学(SD)的施工进度风险演化研究方法。首先,基于实际与理论研究的差异设定模型假设;然后,从工期与安全视角出发,建立施工过程子系统与风险因素子系统,分析子系统因果反馈结构关系;最后,确定邮轮建造施工动力学流图及变量间的函数关系,构建施工进度风险演化模型。研究结果表明:风险因素间的动态演化对邮轮建造施工进度的影响有显著差异,重要性由高到低依次为管理因素、物资因素、施工环境因素。合理的安全投入配置与风险控制时机对工期管控有积极影响。

关键词: 系统动力学(SD), 邮轮建造, 施工进度, 风险演化, 仿真模型

Abstract:

In order to effectively reduce the progress risk of construction projects, and explore the dynamic evolution law of construction period and risk under the interaction of construction schedule and risk elements, a research method for the evolution of construction schedule risk based on SD was established. First of all, the model hypothesis was set based on the difference between practical and theoretical research. Secondly, the construction process subsystem and risk factor subsystem were established from the perspective of construction period and safety, and the causal feedback structure relationship of the subsystems was analyzed. Finally, the dynamic flow diagram of cruise construction and the functional relationship between variables were determined, and the construction schedule risk evolution model was constructed. The results show that the dynamic evolution of risk factors has significant differences in the impact of the construction schedule of cruise ships. The management factors have the greatest impact, followed by material factors, and construction environmental factors have the least impact. In addition, reasonable safety input configuration and risk control timing positively impact construction schedule control.

Key words: system dynamics(SD), cruise ship construction, construction schedule, risk evolution, simulation model

谢露强, 王海燕. 基于系统动力学的邮轮建造施工进度风险演化研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(S1): 63-71.

XIE Luqiang, WANG Haiyan. Research on risk evolution of cruise ship construction schedule based on SD[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S1): 63-71.

图/表 15

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

表1

表2

表3

图7

图8

图9

图10

表4

图11

参考文献 15

[1]	陈伟, 乔治, 熊付刚, 等. 装配式建筑施工安全事故预防SD-MOP模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(1): 19-24. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.01.004
	CEHN Wei, QIAO Zhi, XIONG Fugang, et al. SD-MOP model for preventing prefabricated construction safety accidents[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(1): 19-24. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.01.004
[2]	江新, 吴园莉, 徐平, 等. 工程项目群施工风险演化的SD模型研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(6): 155-161.
	JIANG Xin, WU Yuanli, XU Ping, et al. SD model study on risk evolution in construction of project group[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(6): 155-161.
[3]	HAN Sangwon, LOVE P, PENA-MORA F. A system dynamics model for assessing the impacts of design errors in construction projects[J]. Mathematical Computer Modelling, 2013, 57(9/10): 2 044-2 053. doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.06.039
[4]	XU Xiaoxiao, WANG Jiayuan, LI Zhangdao, et al. Schedule risk analysis of infrastructure projects: a hybrid dynamic approach[J]. Automation in Construction, 2018, 95: 20-34. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2018.07.026
[5]	CHEN Long, LU Qiuchen, LI Shuai, et al. Bayesian Monte Carlo simulation-driven approach for construction schedule risk inference[J]. Journal of Management in Engineering, 2021, 37(2): 1-29.
[6]	WANG Jiayuan, YUAN Hongping. System dynamics approach for investigating the risk effects on schedule delay in infrastructure projects[J]. Journal of Management in Engineering, 2017, 33(1): 1-12.
[7]	MOHAMMADI A, TAVAKOLAN M. Modeling the effects of production pressure on safety performance in construction projects using system dynamics[J]. Journal of Safety Research, 2019, 71: 273-284. doi: S0022-4375(19)30641-3 pmid: 31862039
[8]	MUNEESWARAN G, MANOHARAN P, AWOYERA P, et al. A statistical approach to assess the schedule delays and risks in Indian construction industry[J]. International Journal of Construction Management, 2020, 20(5): 450-461. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1484991
[9]	KIM S-Y, VAN TUAN N, OGUNLANA S O. Quantifying schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief networks[J]. International Journal of Project Management, 2009, 27(1): 39-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.03.003
[10]	LI Zhengdao, HONG Jingke, CHENG Fan, et al. Schedule delay analysis of prefabricated housing production: a hybrid dynamic approach[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 195: 1 533-1 545. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.066
[11]	OZCAN-DENIZ G, ZHU Yimin. A system dynamics model for construction method selection with sustainability considerations[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 121: 33-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.089
[12]	NABI M A, EL-ADAWAY I H, DAGLI C. A system dynamics model for construction safety behavior[J]. Procedia Computer Science, 2020, 168: 249-256. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.02.254
[13]	江新, 李雪莲, 吴静涵, 等. 敏感性水利工程社会稳定风险演化SD模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(4): 18-26. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.04.003
	JIANG Xin, LI Xuelian, WU Jinghan, et al. SD model of social stability risk evolution for sensitive water conservancy projects[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(4): 18-26. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.04.003
[14]	NASIRZADEH F, KHANZARD M, REZAIE M. Dynamic modeling of the quantitative risk allocation in construction projects[J]. International Journal of Project Management, 2014, 32(3): 442-451. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.06.002
[15]	姜欣明, 罗兴柏, 张玉令, 等. 基于梯形模糊综合分析法的弹药维修安全风险评估[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2011, 41(21): 183-193.
	JIANG Xinming, LUO Xingbai, ZHANG Yuling, et al. Safety risk assessment of ammunition maintenance based on trapezoidal fuzzy comprehensive analysis method[J]. Mathematics in Practice and Theory, 2011, 41(21): 183-193.

等级	语言评价	隶属函数
一级	风险程度低	(0,0,1,2)
二级	风险程度较低	(0.5,2,3,4.5)
三级	风险程度一般	(3,4,6,7)
四级	风险程度较高	(5.5,7,8,9.5)
五级	风险程度高	(8,9,10,10)

一类风险	一类风险权重	二类风险	二类风险全局权重	风险评价值
A	0.215 7	A₁	0.034 0	4.3
		A₂	0.038 6	5.4
		A₃	0.023 5	4.1
		A₄	0.029 4	4.2
		A₅	0.017 9	3.7
		A₆	0.025 6	4.0
		A₇	0.015 2	3.6
		A₈	0.031 5	4.2
B	0.173 7	B₁	0.057 3	4.6
		B₂	0.039 6	4.8
		B₃	0.048 1	3.9
		B₄	0.028 7	4.3
C	0.254 3	C₁	0.039 1	3.7
		C₂	0.034 6	3.9
		C₃	0.033 0	5.1
		C₄	0.038 1	5.5
		C₅	0.034 5	4.2
		C₆	0.031 4	5.8
		C₇	0.027 9	4.6
		C₈	0.015 7	3.9
D	0.176 7	D₁	0.056 2	4.0
		D₂	0.075 1	5.5
		D₃	0.045 3	3.1
E	0.180 6	E₁	0.027 1	6.3
		E₂	0.024 6	5.3
		E₃	0.014 9	4.2
		E₄	0.025 5	2.7
		E₅	0.018 5	4.9
		E₆	0.024 6	6.7

变量名称	类型	变量表达式
目标保有量	辅助	if then else(计划工程施工速度>实际施工速度, 计划工程施工速度×目标裕度,实际施工速度×目标裕度)
物资发货率	速率	if then else(剩余工期>目标裕度:and:剩余工作量>(物资库存+在途库存),(目标保有量-物资库存)/库存调整时间+物资出库率+物资废弃率,0)
库存调整时间	辅助	max((入库时间+运输时间)×系统风险水平影响因子,初始值)
物资入库率	速率	delay fixed(物资发货率,库存调整时间,0)
物资库存	状态	integ((物资入库率-物资出库率)×(1-物资废弃率),初始值)
物资出库率	速率	if then else(物资库存>0:and:剩余工作量>0,delay1(实际施工速度, 出库时间×系统风险水平影响因子),0)
实际施工速度	速率	if then else(剩余工作量>0:and:物资库存>0,min(计划工程施工速度×生产效率/系统风险水平影响因子,1.5×计划工程施工速度),0)
工作强度	辅助	with lookup(进度压力,([(0,0)(10,2)],(0,0.1),(0.5,0.6),(1.2,1.1),(1.5,1.2),(2.5,1.4),(4,1.5),(10,2)))
安全投入	辅助	delay1i(期望投入×系统风险水平影响因子, 10, 0)

模型	人员因素	机械设备因素	管理因素	施工环境因素
模型1	0.274	0.228	0.353	0.145
模型2	0.274	0.181	0.4	0.145
模型3	0.274	0.281	0.3	0.145